What an utterly awful use of a pie chart.
According to Edward Tufte, there's no such thing as a good use of a pie chart.
Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
61–70 of 88 posts
Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#62Strange...Alan Eustace has made 3 public posts on October 5, 2011. Perhaps he's a HN reader.
Indeed. And Susan Wojcicki has also come to life (after only making one public post ever back in August). :)
Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#63I suppose if Google+ was a conventional product--and one could get accurate information about whether or not Google's execs actually used it--this article might have a point.
But Google+ isn't a product. It's more like an API that uses a graphic user interface to transfer personal data from users to Google. Google then uses that data to provide an actual product to its actual customers: advertisers.
Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#64Google+ has made a point to enforce a real names policy - no pseudonyms allowed. Surely high level executives have things they would like to say publicly or comment on posts which they see. Reading articles is one thing, but taking the time to form a cohesive argument or opinion required to make comment on public articles can greatly enhance comprehension of a topic. Responding to criticism is also a part of this.
Are we to believe that people rise the ranks to a position of power where they suddenly need not debate issues in the public sphere and take the criticism that goes along with it?
Surely not. So wouldn't it then make sense to at least allow pseudonyms?
Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#65I'm really hoping David Drummond will use G+ to tell us all about the lawsuits his staff is in the process of deposing. That's sure to happen.
David Drummond has blogged publicly on the Google Blog (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...) a few times. Surely it would make sense for him to publish this on his public G+ feed.
Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#66This thought: Further, I think it’s reasonable to assume a correlation between private use & public use kills the whole article. No, it isn't a reasonable assumption. If you look at my Facebook without being a friend of mine, you get a picture of me. Five years of use and that is the only public thing I have published. And I am just another dude no one cares about. I am sure billionaire CEOs and board members who hav…
I disagree - he makes a reasonable assumption. G+ allows you to share things that are public and share things that are private.
If someone was sharing things that are private (our assumption), wouldn't it follow that they are sharing things that they have indicated (via some other means) are public?
For example, David Drummond's post on the Google Blog regarding Android patents (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...). He has authored this post, indicated this is public but failed to share it publicly using G+. Is this not the purpose of G+?
These execs attend press events often where they openly voice their opinion in the public domain. It's a public company too and these people are actually accountable to the public.
However, it seems that although they share publicly when asked to by reporters and their open-ended questions they do not see G+ as a means to publicly share. They do not understand the value of information sharing and user generated content, the cornerstone of web 2.0. They are still stuck in a pull-based world driven by journalists asking questions. Facebook and Twitter understood the value of this change well by living through it (http://vaughan.io/post/10476571077/live-the-problem).
What we can draw from this is that its not going to be Google who jumps on the next big trend in social, if they can't even understand how to use their current product to its intended effect. They only built G+ because the concept was proven by Facebook and now they are just replicating it. Facebook will continue to lead the market here until the top executives like Larry, Sergey, Alan Eustace, etc. can understand their own product, its weaknesses and its strengths.
Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#67Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#68There aren't exactly doing much for their brand are they? It's not about what they do privately.. I mean, hire some PR lackey to post "public" recipes or list your favoriate bands - whatever.
It's perceptions that matter.
Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#69Re: Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+
#70Larry and Sergey are probably just posting under pen names. ;)
Google+ explicitly doesn't allow the use of pseudonyms.
I use a pseudonym on Google+. It's explicitly allowed (although mine breaks the rules), even though they keep locking and deleting people's accounts for using them.